The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-06-07
supreme Court of che Hawaiian ISL
ands.--In Banco. April Term. 1887.
Appeal from Decision Of PRESToN,J.
LE1lU (w) AND KAUALoHA Ky VS.. KAHAI
KALUA.


JUDD C. J., M'cULLY j., PRESTON j., BIcKER-
TON J. tFoRNANDER J., ABsENT.)
Opinion of the Court
We have considered carefully the
pleadings and evidence in this case,
and the arguments of counsel, and are
of the opinion that the decision rem
dered by Mr.. Justice Preston on the
18th January last should be sustained,
and we hereby adopt the same and
affirm the decree made.
Nj. Thompson for plaintiffs; iona.
Austin jor defendant.
Honolulu, May 25, 1887.
Decision Of PRESTON, J., appealed from.
On the eleventh day OF December,
1880. the complainant, Lelau, being
then a widow, executed a deed in ia
vor of her brother, whereby for the
consideration of one dollar paid in
emy hand and the agreement of Ia
''haikalua (the defendant) to support
''ne until death, and 1 to live on the
Gland till the end of nay natural life,
therefore hereby sell and release by
"this deed to the said Kahaikalua, his
'heirs and assigns, that piece of land
situated in Kaakepua, Honolulu,
aforesaid, being Apana l mentioned
"in Royal Patent No. 218, Kuleana
mo. 1869, with all the rents, issues,
"appurtenances and profits thereof
"and belonging thereto"
On the 28th August last Leiau and
her husband commenced this suit and
by their bill allege Gnter alia,l
That the said deed was made IN con-
temptation of the said Leiau's mar
rage with one Kealiikuawaa, ito
whom she was married three days
thereafter1 and that the said deed was
not made for the use, benefit or be-
hoof of the defendant, but was made
Tor the sole use, benefit and behoct of
said Leiau, and to secure to her al
the means of support that could IN
any way be derived from the said
property in case said KealiikuRwaH
should fail to support her while he
lived, and also to prevent the said Ke
sliikuawaa from acquiring any inter
est In the said property, al Of which
the defendant well knew. The COM
plainsnt, Leiau, admits that her said
husband, Kealiikuawaa amply sup
ported her from the time of the mar
rage until his death, and from that
time until she married her co-plaintiff
she supported herself by the rents
and by means of said property, and
the assistance of friends, and her pres
ent husband owns considerable prop
erty and has supported her amply
since her marriage and that she has
not needed, and has not received any
support from the defendant.
That the defendant, from childhood
until the early part of the year 1881,
lived on the said land, and then left,
but returned there with his wife in
October, 1885, and left finally in Jnne
or July, 1856, and that he at various
times claimed to be entitled to said
property absolutely, and to the imme
date possession thereof.
That the object and purpose for
which the said deed was made have
been accomplished, and that the only
trust created in and by said deed ter
minated upon the death of Kealiikua-
waa, and that said Leiau is entitled
to the actual possession and enjoy
ment of the said property and to call
upon the defendant to execute such
conveyance Of the legal estate as she
may direct.
The bill prays that defendant be
decreed to execute deed of quit claim
of said property to the complainant,
Leiau, and for an injunction restrain
ing defendant from disposing of, or
interfering with the compliments
possession of the said property.
The answer admits that the deed
was made in contemplation of the
marriage of the complainant, Leisu,
and to prevent her husband acquiring
any interest in the premises conveyed
and in consideration of the undertak-
ing on the part of the defendent to
support the said Leiau, and to permit
her to reside upon the premises until
her death, and that he has fulfilled,
and intends to continue to fulfill his
said undertaking.
Other matters alleged in the bill,
and which are not important to the
decision OF the case, are either trav
ersed or admitted.
At the hearing, the complainant,
Leiau, testified that she told the de-
PENDANT that she was going to put her
property in his keeping as her in
tended husband might owe a great
deal, so she wanted her property pro-
tected. and told him that if her hus-
band was to die before her then the
property would be hers, but we should
60 and live on the property, as we
were all relatives, and should live to
gether.
The complainant denied that she
gave instructions to have the deed
prepared, but 1 find the weight of tes-
timony is against her on this point,
and that she did instruct J. NJ. Kane